Appeal No. 1997-0844
Application No. 08/269,979
containing wastewater of pH ranging from about 1.5 to 3 with
at least about 100 ppm phosphorus and at least about 50 ppm
fluorine (see Zibrida, col. 4, ll. 7-16). There is no
evidence of record that the source material recited in claim
18 is different than the materials (e.g., pond water) treated 2
by Zibrida or that the process water produced in claim 18
differs substantially from the effluent produced in Zibrida.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie
case for anticipation/obviousness of the claimed product-by-
process which has not been rebutted with convincing evidence
or argument by appellants. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 18 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Zibrida is affirmed.
B. The Rejection of Claim 28
2Randolph, U.S. Patent No. 3,625,648, issued Dec. 7, 1971,
of record in this application, discloses that it is
conventional in wet process phosphoric acid processes for
gypsum pond waters to contain scrubbing products of waste
(fluoride-bearing) gases, of course along with liquid drainage
from the waste gypsum itself (col. 1, ll. 20-23 and 47-58).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007